On May 19, 2026, a pivotal hearing took place at the Mueller Civic Center in Hot Springs, South Dakota, on a uranium exploration permit application that has sparked significant interest and opposition from local communities. This event not only highlights the importance of environmental stewardship but also marks a step forward in recognizing the cultural and linguistic diversity inherent to the state.
At the heart of the hearing was a new state law, known as Helen’s Law, championed by Rep. Erik Muckey, D-Sioux Falls, which requires language translation services for certain government proceedings, due to take effect on July 1, 2026. Despite its pending enactment, this law played a crucial role in the proceedings, showcasing South Dakota’s commitment to inclusivity and transparency in governmental processes.
The application, submitted by a company seeking to explore uranium in the southern Black Hills near Edgemont, has been a contentious issue since 2024. Opposition has been widespread, with opponents citing concerns over potential water contamination risks and the site’s proximity to Craven Canyon—a place rich with ancient Native American petroglyphs and used by the Lakota tribes for prayer and ceremonies.
The hearing drew attention not only to environmental and cultural preservation issues but also to the linguistic challenges faced by the Lakota-speaking community in South Dakota. Elizabeth Lone Eagle, one of the opponents, had previously requested Lakota interpretation services, emphasizing the need to accommodate first-language Lakota speakers involved in the case.
Prior to the enactment of Helen’s Law, Board Chairman Glenn Blumhardt recognized the importance of the provision for translation services during a meeting in March, which led to a vote on overturning a previous decision to deny interpreters. “Is this bill currently in effect? The answer is no,” Blumhardt remarked. “The point is whether or not this is applicable at this time.” Despite the absence of a legal mandate, the board opted to provide these services, reflecting the spirit of the upcoming law.
Erik Muckey
The hearing’s first day, however, proceeded without a Lakota interpreter. This oversight drew intense criticism, leading to a swift response from state officials who subsequently contracted Alex White Plume and Leola One Feather for the remaining days. The interpreters were paid a rate of $61.88 per hour, split between them, which White Plume described as “insulting” yet acknowledged the critical need for their work.
“I did it anyway,” White Plume explained, citing the necessity for those present to understand the proceedings in their own language for better clarity. “It was really important for the Lakota speakers to hear their language and understand the legal jargon.”
South Dakota, known for its iconic landscapes and deep-rooted cultural heritage, has been home to the Lakota people for generations. Despite historical attempts at assimilation, including the forced attendance at boarding schools demanding English language use, the Lakota language persists as an integral part of many communities in the state. White Plume’s decision to translate was a testament to the resilience and importance of preserving Native languages in legislative processes.
Glenn Blumhardt
Rep. Muckey emphasized that Helen’s Law extends beyond addressing the needs of the Lakota speakers alone. The law serves all South Dakotans who may require translation services due to language barriers or disabilities in legal and administrative contexts. “We can’t turn people away from due process of law,” Muckey stated, highlighting the law’s broader implications for inclusivity.
As the state looks toward the future, the balancing act between economic development and preserving its natural and cultural resources remains delicate. The uranium exploration in the Black Hills clearly reflects this challenge, reiterating the significance of community involvement and cultural sensitivity in decision-making processes that impact South Dakota’s distinct landscape and populace.
In conclusion, the hearing held in Hot Springs is more than just a case about mining—it is a narrative about South Dakota’s journey towards inclusivity, a recognition of its multilinguistic identity, and a testament to the resilience of its people.